SAN MIGUEL FOODS INC. VS SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PTWGO

SAN MIGUEL FOODS INC.

VS

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PTWGO
535 SCRA 133 (2007)

Gross or flagrant violation of the seniority rule under the CBA is an unfair labor practice which the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction.

Some employees of San Miguel Foods Inc. (SMFI) brought grievance against Finance Manager Gideo Montesa for discrimination, favouritism, unfair labor practice and harassment. SMFI failed to act on the complaint which prompted San Miguel Corporation Employees Union PTWGO (the Union) to filea case with the National Labor Relations Commission against SMFI, its President Amadeo Veloso and Montesa. It prayed that SMFI et al. be ordered to promote the therein named employees with the corresponding pay increases or adjustment including payment of salary differentials plus attorney’ s fees[,] and to cease and desist from committing the same unjust discrimination in matters of promotion.

SMFI filed a motion to dismiss on the alleged ground that the grievance issue should be resolved in the grievance machinery provided in the collective bargaining. The Union opposed the motion to dismiss. The NLRC dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not complaints for violation of seniority rule under the CBA falls within the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction

HELD:
As for the alleged ULP committed under Article 248 (i), for violation of a CBA, this Article is qualified by Article 261 of the Labor Code, provides that violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

As reflected in the above-quoted allegations of the Union in its Position Paper, the Union charges SMFI to have violated the grievance machinery provision in the CBA. The grievance machinery provision in the CBA is not an economic provision, however, hence, the second requirement for a Labor Arbiter to exercise jurisdiction of a ULP is not present.

The Union likewise charges SMFI, however, to have violated the Job Security provision in the CBA, specifically the seniority rule, in that SMFI “appointed less senior employees to positions at its Finance Department, consequently intentionally by-passing more senior employees who are deserving of said appointment.

As above-stated, the Union charges SMFI to have promoted less senior employees, thus bypassing others who were more senior and equally or more qualified. It may not be seriously disputed that this charge is a gross or flagrant violation of the seniority rule under the CBA, a ULP over which the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction.

SMFI, at all events, questions why the Court of Appeals came out with a finding that it (SMFI) disregarded the seniority rule under the CBA when its petition before said court merely raised a question of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals having affirmed the NLRC decision finding that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the Union complaint and thus remanding it to the Labor Arbiter for continuation of proceedings thereon, the appellate court said finding may be taken to have been made only for the purpose of determining jurisdiction.